Petitioner challenged premature retirement notice under Punjab Civil Service Rule, arguing service record did not justify early retirement. Court dismissed petition as no merit found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.12718 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 11.2.2010
Ram Sarup
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Others …Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: None for the petitioner
Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.A.G., Haryana
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
On the last date of hearing, Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Advocate had appeared for the petitioner and sought adjournment. He was given adjournment as a last chance. The matter is pending since 1993. He has chosen not to appear. Hence the matter is heard in his absence.
The petitioner is aggrieved of notice dated 17.7.1993 (Annexure P-3) whereby he was given three months notice of premature retirement on attaining the age of 55 years under rule 3.26 (d) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rule Vol.I, Part-I.
The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 10.1.1937 and he was due to retire on 10.1.1995 on attaining the age of 58 years. However,
CWP No.12718 of 1993 2
he is being illegally retired at the age of 55 years by virtue of the impugned notice. It is admitted case of the parties that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after placing him under suspension. Though his suspension was revoked, but on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him vide order dated 20.6.1989. His suspension was also treated as the leave of kind due vide order dated 22.7.1989. Both these orders attained finality. It is further case of the petitioner that his service record does not justify premature retirement from service.
Another ground to challenge the impugned order is that even after attaining the age of 55 years, he was allowed to continue in service for 1 ½ years till July, 1993 and thus the impugned order retiring him prematurely is not sustainable. It is further alleged that the petitioner had been earning “Good” and “Very Good” reports in his ACRs.
The reply filed by the respondents, however, depicts a different picture. Apart from referring to the order dated 20.6.1989 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner from 1981 to 1990 have been reproduced in the reply. The petitioner earned adverse remarks of “integrity doubtful” in the ACR of the year 1982-83 and “average” in the ACR of 1981-82. There is also a entry of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect during the period 1989-90, though other ACRs are “Good”, except the one “Very Good”. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fide against any person. The petitioner having earned the endorsement of “integrity doubtful” and punishment of “stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect” with further average remark has been rightly retired
CWP No.12718 of 1993 3
prematurely. Neither the adverse entries are challenged nor the punishment has been challenged.
In view of the above circumstances, I find no merit in this petition
which is accordingly dismissed.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
11.2.2010 MFK
CWP No.12718 of 1993 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was lawfully retired at age 55 despite being due to retire at age 58.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Sarup
State of Haryana
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
